AW_Examples_Appendix.docx

Airworthiness Examples for FA8505-16-R-0017

Certification Basis Example:

First Flight Basis Example:

First Flight Compliance Report Example:

image1.emf

F-15E AR Ops - RAAF KC-30 - Cert Basis.xlsx Cover Page (Cert Basis)

MDS: F-15E

KC-30 AERIAL REFUELING WITH F-15 CERTIFICATION

MODIFICATION AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION CRITERIA (MACC)

CERTIFICATION BASIS

Version: 00

Date: 2 Feb 16

I declare that the substantiating data provided herin is accurate, complete, and where identified shows compliance to the approved certification basis for this aircraft system configuration.

Cover Page (Compliance Report)

MDS: F-15C/D/E

KC-30 AERIAL REFUELING WITH F-15 CERTIFICATION

MODIFICATION AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION CRITERIA (MACC)

CERTIFICATION BASIS

Version: 00

Date:

I declare that the substantiating data provided herin is accurate, complete, and where identified shows compliance to the approved certification basis for this aircraft system configuration.

System Information

Certification Basis:

The certification basis defined by this document was derived from of MIL-HDBK-516B Expanded Version, Airworthiness Certification Criteria, dated 26 Sep 2005.

System Description:

Limitations:

&"Arial,Bold Italic"&14&A

Compliance Summary

Compliant ERROR:#REF!

High Risk ERROR:#REF!

Serious Risk ERROR:#REF!

Medium Risk ERROR:#REF!

Low Risk ERROR:#REF!

Error ERROR:#REF!

Total Criteria Applicable Criteria Compliant Non Compliant High Serious Medium Low Error

4 Systems Engineering 17 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 Structures 42 ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF!

6 Flight technology 207 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 Propulsion & Propulsion Inst'l 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 Air Vehicle Subsystems 263 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 Crew Systems 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Diagnostic Systems 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 Avionics 29 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Electrical Systems 25 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Electromagnetic Environ Effects 13 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 System Safety 31 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Computer Resources 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Maintenance 21 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Armament /Stores Integration 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Passenger Safety 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Materials 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 Other Considerations 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 905 ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF! ERROR:#REF!

Listing of Noncompliant Criteria & SSRA Summary:

Non-Compliant Criteria System Safety Risk Assessment (SSRA) HRI #

USAF AIRWORTHINESS RISK ACCEPTANCE MATRIX

&"Arial,Bold Italic"&14&A

Criteria Compliance Summary

Compliance Summary Compliant High Risk Serious Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Error 0 0 0 0 0 0

Doc Summary (Compliance Report)

Listing of Documents:

Appears in 516 section

Title Document File Name 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

KC-30A TDS V2.1 Section A. Included in SSRA

RAAF KC-30A ad USAF F-15 Aerial Refueling Certification Testing Plan x Matrix - classified x Not been submitted - functional testing wrapping up last week of Jan 2016 x x x Submitted x x x Submitted x x x Submitted x x x Submitted - classified x x x x x Submitted - classified x x x x x In work - testing completed week of 18 Jan 2016 x x x x x x Submitted x x x Submitted x x Submitted x x x x x x x -1 T.O. Basic Flight Limitations - with restriction on AoA of 30 cockpit units - Submitted and included in SSRA x x x x x x x x Boeing conducted demonstration on 7 Jan 2016 - no report will be provided x x Drawings and 2 kits provided - one kit installed F-15C 80-0002 ist week of Nov 2015 x x x x x x Submitted - drawing not instructions since Boeing performed install and is to do demod x Submitted - classified x x x x x Submitted x x x x x Will be submitted after testing conducted at Edwards in late Feb 2016 x x x x Submitted by AATC - (unclassified and classified annex) x x x x AATC will issue a single OA report after the flight OA; As part of the EMC report, summary of ground OA results will be included (quick look) x x x Submitted by AATC (unclassified and classified annex) x x x Submitted by AATC (classified) x x x x x Pre-Flight Briefing information included in Flight Test procedure/flight cards x x Weight and Balance - Boeing indicates the delta weight of ~8.5 lbs does not require reweighing the aircraft x x Submitted - classified x x x x x x x Included in Alion SSRA

Updated 1 Feb 2016

4 Systems Engineering

Certification Basis Compliance Review AW/PO Finalized Compliance & Risk Level in Accordance with AWB 13 Directions: Columns C (applicability), R (EZ compliance) and W (EZ HRI) require explicit data for the calculations to work. Columns C and Q are Y/N (either capitalized or not), Column V is a number (1-20). The lists to limit the data selection are in column AL (and must not be deleted). Columns X through AF will gather spreadsheet findings and will be transferred to Compliance Summary for System view.

TACC Para# Mil-HDBK-516B Certification Criteria Applicable (Y/N) Marking Reference Application for Receiver with New/Modified Tanker Application for Tanker with New/Modified Receiver Rationale for Applicability Standard (Not Tailored) Method of Compliance (Not Tailored) Tailored Standard (if applicable) Tailored Method of Compliance (if applicable) Standard for Program with Certification Basis Tailoring Method of Compliance With Certification Basis Tailoring Substantiating Data References Program Office Responsible Engineer PO Initial Compliance Assessment (Y/N) PO Initial Hazard Risk Index for Non-Compliance (1-20) EN Reviewer Name Contact Information EN Quicklook Comments (Is the package complete, data available, non-compliances and risks ID'ed) EN Quicklook Implications/Impact EN SME Compliance Assessment (Y/N) EN Issue With Compliance

(include rationale for any difference in risk assessment) EN Proposed Restrictions for Non-compliance EN Hazard & Predicted Severity EN TA comments EN TD comments PO Response to SME Assessment Applicable = NonApplicable = Compliant = Non Compliant = High = Serious = Medium = Low = Error = Y

4 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.1.1 E. Matheson DSN 986-9604 Verify that the design criteria, including requirements and rules, adequately address safety for mission usage, full permissible flight envelope, duty cycle, interfaces, induced and natural environment, inspection capability, and maintenance philosophy. Y ERROR:#REF! Y Y New induced operating environment from new tanker/receiver pairing may vary from the orginal intended environment. Standard:

Allocated high level mission and safety requirements down through the design hierarchy are defined. Allocated design criteria for all system elements and components result in required levels of safety throughout the defined operational flight envelope, usage, and life.

DoD/MIL Doc:

Appropriate design criteria paragraphs of JSSG-2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and others.

FAA Doc:

14CFR references: 23.21-23.3, 25.21-25.33 Compliance:

Process documentation describes requirements allocation and design criteria definition. Traceability is shown among requirements, design solutions, and verification analyses and tests. Adequacy of design criteria to meet top level safety & airworthiness requirements is substantiated.

DoD/MIL Doc:

Appropriate design criteria paragraphs of JSSG-2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and others.

FAA Doc:

4.1.3 E. Matheson DSN 986-9604 Verify that, for commercial derivative air vehicles, the air vehicle's certification basis addresses all design criteria appropriate for the planned military usage. N ERROR:#REF! Y Y New induced operating environment from new tanker/receiver pairing may vary from the orginal intended environment. F-15 is not a commercial derivative air vehicle. Standard:

Commercial derivative aircraft have been assessed for their suitability for the intended military application and determined to be capable and safe.

DoD/MIL Doc:

Appropriate design criteria paragraphs of JSSG-2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and others.

FAA Doc:

14CFR references: 23.21, 23.601-23.629, 25.601-25.631 Compliance:

Intended military utilization and flight envelope of the air vehicle are shown to be wholly within the existing commercial certification basis OR the military air vehicle airworthiness certification addresses "delta" conditions and environments over and above those covered by the commercial certification. Substantiation provided that the air vehicle is suitable for its intended military usage.

DoD/MIL Doc:

Appropriate design criteria paragraphs of JSSG-2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and others.

FAA Doc:

14CFR references: 23.21, 23.601-23.629, 25.601-25.631 Standard:

Commercial derivative aircraft have been assessed for their suitability for AR operatins between the new/modified tanker/receiver pair and determined to be capable and safe.

4.1.4 E. Matheson DSN 986-9604 Verify that failure conditions have been adequately addressed in the design criteria. N ERROR:#REF! Y Y The new/modified tanker/receiver pairing may affect the CSIs previously identified for given tanker/receiver pairing. This criterion does not only appy to failure conditions. No new failure modes are presented with the new tanker. Standard:

The air vehicle design and utilization result in a maximum occurrence rate of non-combat related catastrophic events (i.e., loss of vehicle or an event resulting in a human casualty) of one event per one million flight hours.

The air vehicle design and utilization result in a maximum occurrence rate of non-combat related catastrophic events (i.e., loss of vehicle or an event resulting in a human casualty) of one event per one million flight hours (to include AR operations).

4.2 Tools and databases. ERROR:#REF! 0 0 0 0 4

4.2.1 K. Beasley DSN 786-9989 Verify that all tools, methods, and databases used in the requirements definition/allocation, design, risk control and assessments of safety have been adequately validated and/or certified. N ERROR:#REF! Y Y Changes to environment from a new/modified AR pairing may impact verification, validation, and accredidation of models and simulations. No impact to verification, validation of model and simulations because similar environment to already certified tanker. Standard:

Design and performance verification analysis tools, prediction methods, models, and/or simulations are applied appropriately and exhibit accuracy commensurate with their application.

DoD/MIL Doc:

Appropriate design criteria paragraphs of JSSG-2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and others.

FAA Doc:

Refer to technical point of contact for this discipline (listed in section A.2). Compliance:

Analysis tools, software packages, and simulations used to produce or verify flight critical product designs have been proven to achieve required accuracy through techniques like benchmarking against test results. Tool sets under configuration control to preclude unauthorized modifications.

DoD/MIL Doc:

Appropriate design criteria paragraphs of JSSG-2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and others.

FAA Doc:

4.5.1 C Garland DSN 986-9990 Verify that processes are in place to identify and document all restrictions, warnings, and cautions. Y ERROR:#REF! Y Y New AR restrictions, warnings, and cautions may be created for AR operations between the new/modified tanker/receiver pair. Standard:

Operator's handbooks or manuals identify all applicable restrictions, warnings, and cautions. These items are identified in such a manner as to attract attention and set them apart from normal text. When an unsafe condition is detected and annunciated, the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) has clear and precise corrective procedures for handling the failure without an excessive increase in workload.

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-STD-38784, Standard Practice for Manuals, Technical: General Style and Format Requirements

FAA Doc:

14CFR reference: 23.1581, 25.1581, 23.1541, 25.1541. Compliance:

Process documentation describes procedures for deriving restrictions, warnings, and cautions from system technical data. Operating manuals incorporate appropriate cautions. Process descriptions include methods for updating this information as needed.

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-STD-38784, Standard Practice for Manuals, Technical: General Style and Format Requirements

FAA Doc:

14CFR reference: 23.1581, 25.1581, 23.1541, 25.1541. Standard:

Operator's handbooks or manuals identify all applicable restrictions, warnings, and cautions: including NATO ATP 3.3.4.2 (ATP-56). These items are identified in such a manner as to attract attention and set them apart from normal text. When an unsafe condition is detected and annunciated, the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) has clear and precise corrective procedures for handling the failure without an excessive increase in workload.

Compliance:

Operating manuals incorporate appropriate limitations, cautions, and warnings. Resubmittal of previously accepted process documents are not required but documents should be identified.

KC-30A TDS V2.1 Section A.

4.5.2 C Garland DSN 986-9990 Verify that processes are in place to identify and document the technical data, and that the technical data reflects the defined functional and product baseline. Y ERROR:#REF! Y Y New technical data reflecting functional changes may be created for AR operations between the new/modified tanker/receiver pair. Standard:

Process is defined, documented, and implemented to update product requirement, design, manufacturing, and/or maintenance data which is used to generate technical manuals (e.g., operators handbooks, maintenance manuals). Maximum timelines to accomplish updates are consistent with the criticality of the change activity (e.g., an identified safety hazard or a performance based change having a safety impact).

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-STD-38784, Standard Practice for Manuals, Technical: General Style and Format Requirements.

FAA Doc:

14CFR reference: 23.21, 25.21, 23.601, 25.601, 23.1301, 25.1301 Compliance:

Adequacy of change/update process for technical data verified by inspection of process documentation. Examples of revised design or maintenance data provided to verify traceability back to change "event".

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-STD-38784, Standard Practice for Manuals, Technical: General Style and Format Requirements.

FAA Doc:

14CFR reference: 23.21, 25.21, 23.601, 25.601, 23.1301, 25.1301 Standard:

Process is defined, documented, and implemented to update system-level requirements, and/or maintenance data which is used to generate technical manuals (e.g., operators handbooks, maintenance manuals). Maximum timelines to accomplish updates are consistent with the criticality of the change activity (e.g., an identified safety hazard or a performance based change having a safety impact).

Compliance:

Adequacy of change/update process for technical data verified by inspection of process documentation. Examples of revised maintenance data provided to verify traceability back to the new/modified tanker/receiver pair. Resubmittal of previously accepted process documents are not required but documents should be identified.

KC-30A TDS V2.1 Section A.

4.5.3 C Garland DSN 986-9990 Verify that procedures are in place for establishing and maintaining flight vehicle integrity. N ERROR:#REF! Y Y Tanker/receiver vehicle flight integrity can be affected by AR operations between the new/modified tanker/receiver pair. Standard:

Process is defined, documented, and implemented to accomplish timely updates to operator and maintenance manuals as made necessary by product design changes, identified safety issues (e.g., class I DRs), or changes in ops concepts or usage. Current updated technical data is used to effect technical manual revisions. Maximum timelines to incorporate changes in manuals are based on the impact of the change or the severity of the identified hazard.

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-HDBK-515, Weapon System Integrity Guide MIL-STD-1530, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program MIL-HDBK-87244, Avionics/Electronics Integrity JSSG-2001A: para 3.3.5.1, 3.3.7.1 JSSG-2009: Appendix I Compliance:

Adequacy of change/update process for technical manuals verified by inspection of process documentation. Examples of change pages provided to verify traceability back to change "event".

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-HDBK-515, Weapon System Integrity Guide MIL-STD-1530, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program MIL-HDBK-87244, Avionics/Electronics Integrity JSSG-2001A: para 3.3.5.1, 3.3.7.1 JSSG-2009: Appendix I Standard:

Process is defined, documented, and implemented to accomplish timely updates to operator and maintenance manuals as made necessary by identified safety issues, or changes in ops concepts or usage. Current updated technical data is used to effect technical manual revisions. Maximum timelines to incorporate changes in manuals are based on the impact of the change or the severity of the identified hazard. Appropriate changes are documented in NATO ATP 3.3.4.2 (ATP-56).

Compliance:

Adequacy of change/update process for technical manuals verified by inspection of process documentation. Examples of change pages provided to verify traceability back to new/modified tanker/receiver pair. Resubmittal of previously accepted process documents are not required but documents should be identified.

0 1 0 0 17

4.6 Configuration identification. N 0 1 0 0 18

4.6.1 L. Lorenz

DSN 986-6673

T. Gileza DSN 986-9254 Verify that the functional baseline is properly documented, established, and brought under configuration control. N ERROR:#REF! Y Y Applicable for new tanker/receiver pairing. Newly defined requirement was not addressed in functional baseline. Standard:

Configuration Control Process is in place to preclude unauthorized changes.

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-STD-961E, Defense and Program Unique Specifications Format and Content, Appendix A;

MIL-HDBK-61A, Configuration Management, sections 3, and 5.5.1 Configuration Baselines for definitions and purposes of configuration baselines

FAA Doc:

14CFR reference: 23.21, 25.21, 23.601, 25.601, 23.1301, 25.1301 Compliance:

Configuration Control Plan is defined and implemented in accordance with the contract.

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-STD-961E, Defense and Program Unique Specifications Format and Content, Appendix A;

MIL-HDBK-61A, Configuration Management, sections 3, and 5.5.1 Configuration Baselines for definitions and purposes of configuration baselines

FAA Doc:

4.6.2 L. Lorenz

DSN 986-6673

T. Gileza DSN 986-9254 Verify that the product baseline is properly documented, established, and brought under configuration control. N ERROR:#REF! Y Y Applicable for new tanker/receiver pairing. Newly defined operational requirement is not addressed in the product baseline. F-15 configuration management is unaffected and is already in place. Standard:

Configuration Control Process is in place to preclude unauthorized changes.

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-STD-961E, Defense and Program Unique Specifications Format and Content, Appendix A;

MIL-HDBK-61A, Configuration Management, sections 3, and 5.5.1 Configuration Baselines for definitions and purposes of configuration baselines

FAA Doc:

14CFR reference: 23.21, 25.21, 23.601, 25.601, 23.1301, 25.1301 Compliance:

Configuration Control Plan is defined and implemented in accordance with the contract. Inspection of the Engineering Release System verifies adequate capture of all changes to the technical documentation.

DoD/MIL Doc:

MIL-STD-961E, Defense and Program Unique Specifications Format and Content, Appendix A;

MIL-HDBK-61A, Configuration Management, sections 3, and 5.5.1 Configuration Baselines for definitions and purposes of configuration baselines

FAA Doc:

5 Structures

Certification Basis Compliance Review AW/PO Finalized Compliance & Risk Level in Accordance with AWB 13 Directions: Columns C (applicability), R (EZ compliance) and W (EZ HRI) require explicit data for the calculations to work. Columns C and Q are Y/N (either capitalized or not), Column V is a number (1-20). The lists to limit the data selection are in column AL (and must not be deleted). Columns X through AF will gather spreadsheet findings and will be transferred to Compliance Summary for System view.

TACC Para# Mil-HDBK-516B Certification Criteria Applicable (Y/N) Applicable Receiver with new/modified Tanker Applicable Tanker with new/modified Receiver Rationale for Applicability Standard Method of Compliance Tailored Standard (if applicable) Tailored Method of Compliance (if applicable) Substantiating Data References Program Office Responsible Engineer Compliant (Y/N) Risk Assessment Level for Non-Compliances (RHI) EN Quicklook Comments (Is the package complete, data available, non-compliances and risks ID'ed) EN Quicklook Implications/Impact EN SME Compliance Assessment (Y/N) EN Issue With Compliance

(include rationale for any difference in risk assessment) EN Proposed Restrictions for Non-compliance EN Hazard & Predicted Severity EN TA comments EN TD comments PO Response to SME Assessment Applicable = NonApplicable = Compliant = Non Compliant = High = Serious = Medium = Low = Error = Y

5 STRUCTURES 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.1 Loads 0 0 0 0 N

5.1.4 B. Buckey DSN 986-9928 Verify that the airframe is designed such that all loads resulting from or following single or multiple system failures are limit loads. Also verify that loads resulting from a single component failure are designed as limit loads regardless of probability of occurrence. Y Y Y Loads experienced due to failure of latching mechanisms in couplings and receptacles during tension disconnects may be unique to / adversely affected by the new/modified tanker/receiver pair Standard:

A. Airframe is designed such that limit loads from single or multiple system failures have a frequency of occurrence greater than or equal to 1 x 10-7 per flight.

B. The air vehicle is operated within the flight limits subsequent to a detectable failure.

C. Single or multiple system failures assessed include tire failures, propulsion system failures, radome failures, mechanical failures, hydraulic failures, flight control system failures, transparency failures, and hung stores.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.2.22, A4.2.22. Compliance:

The following compliance is applicable to all standards:

Analyses and laboratory tests in which verification is preformed on as many system failures as practical in order to reduce the risk of damage to aircraft and crew. Ground and flight loads analyses correlated with test data.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.2.22, A4.2.22. Standard:

A. AR system is designed such that limit loads from single or multiple system failures are considered.

B. The air vehicle is operated within the flight limits subsequent to a detectable failure.

Compliance:

The following compliance is applicable to all standards:

Analysis and laboratory tests in which verification is preformed on as many system failures as practical in order to reduce the risk of damage to the tanker/receiver. Ground and flight loads analyses correlated with test data.

Analyses and laboratory tests in which verification is preformed on as many system failures as practical in order to reduce the risk of damage to the tanker/receiver. Ground and flight loads analyses correlated with test data.

No lab test. Analyses to verify any additional failures due to new tanker based on new tanker engineering data. Ground and flight test loads correlated with existing load limits.

Draft KC-30/F-35A certification flight Test Reports, dated 23 Sept 2015, 25 Sept 2015, 28 Sept 2015, 8 Oct 2015, 14 Oct 2015, 16 Oct 2015, 17 Oct 2015, 21 Oct 2015. Draft KC-30/F-16 certification flight Test Reports dated 3 Dec 2015, 4 Dec 2015, 5 Dec 2015, 8 Dec 2015, 9 Dec 2105.

5.1.5 B. Buckey DSN 986-9928 Verify that the airframe is designed such that ultimate loads are obtained by multiplication of limit loads by the appropriate factors of uncertainty. Also verify that the ultimate loads are used in the design of elements of the airframe subject to a deterministic design approach. Y Y Y AR system limit/ultimate loads can be unique to / adversely affected by a new/modiefied tanker/receiver pair.

Standard:

A. Airframe is designed such that ultimate loads are obtained by multiplying the limit loads by a 1.5 factor of uncertainty.

B. Airframe is designed with a thermal load factor of uncertainty when thermal loads are significant.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.2.12, A4.2.12. Compliance:

The following compliance is applicable to both standards:

Correlated ground and flight loads analyses. Establishment of the service and maximum loads expected to be encountered during operation under all flight conditions. Wind tunnel tests utilized for development of aerodynamic loads. Stiffness and ground vibration tests utilized to update flexibility vs. rigid characteristics of loads analytical model. Flight controls and aerodynamic flight tests utilized to update aircraft simulation models. Loads calibration tests utilized to develop ground/flight load equations. 80% and 100% flight loads surveys/demonstrations utilized to correlate analytical model and to substantiate the design loads.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.2.12, A4.2.12. Airframe is designed such that ultimate loads are obtained by multiplying the limit loads by a 1.5 factor of uncertainty. Compliance:

Correlated ground and flight loads analyses. Establishment of the service and maximum loads expected to be encountered during AR operations under all applicable flight conditions. Wind tunnel tests utilized for development of aerodynamic loads. Stiffness and ground vibration tests utilized to update flexibility vs. rigid characteristics of loads analytical model. Flight controls and aerodynamic flight tests utilized to update aircraft simulation models. Loads calibration tests utilized to develop ground/flight load equations. 80% and 100% flight loads surveys/demonstrations utilized to correlate analytical model and to substantiate the design loads.

Analysis of similarity with existing certified tankers as well as analysis of similarity between KC-30 and F-16/-F35.

5.1.6 B. Buckey DSN 986-9928 Verify that the airframe is designed such that all sources of repeated loads are considered and included in the development of the service loads spectra and do not detract from the airframe service life. Y Y Y Unique repeated loads can occur during AR operations for a new/modified tanker/receiver pair:

1 Global aircraft loads experienced by the tanker or receiver from approach to contact positions 2 Loads experienced at the probe/drogue boom/receptacle interface while coupled in flight

Standard:

Airframe is designed with the following conditions as sources of repeated loads:

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.2.14.3, A4.2.14. Compliance:

A. The following compliance is applicable all the conditions of the standard:

Ground and flight loads analyses correlated with test data.

B. The following two compliances are applicable to condition #6 of the standard:

C. The following compliance is applicable to condition #4 of the standard:

Updated predictions of the vibration and aeroacoustic environments.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.2.14.3, A4.2.14. Standard:

Airframe is designed with the following conditions as sources of repeated loads:

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.2.14.3, A4.2.14. Compliance:

A. The following compliance is applicable all the conditions of the standard:

Ground and flight loads analyses correlated with test data.

B. The following two compliances are applicable to condition #6 of the standard:

C. The following compliance is applicable to condition #4 of the standard:

Updated predictions of the vibration and aeroacoustic environments.

5.1.8 B. Buckey

Airframe loads are generated with stability augmentation and similar devices in which all modes likely to be encountered are addressed.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A.3.2.18 and A.4.2.18 Compliance:

The following compliance is applicable to the standard:

Analyses and tests verifying the normal operation as well as some potential modes of operation. Analyses and ground tests verifying the emergency associated modes of operation. Correlated ground and flight loads analyses. Wind tunnel tests utilized for development of aerodynamic loads. Flight controls and aerodynamic flight tests utilized to update aircraft simulation models. 80% and 100% flight loads surveys/demonstrations utilized to correlate analytical model.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A.3.2.18 and A.4.2.18 Standard:

Airframe loads due to failure of load alleviation systems do not exceed airframe design limit loads.

Compliance:

The following compliance is applicable to the standard:

Analyses and tests verifying loads developed under failure conditions do not exceed airframe design limit loads.

Legacy certification addresses loads behind legacy tankers. Pilot assessments will validate similar environment. 0 1 0 0 7

5.1.9 B. Buckey DSN 986-9928 Verify that flight loading conditions are based on realistic conditions of airframe response to pilot induced or autonomous maneuvers, loss of control maneuvers, and turbulence. Also verify that the realistic conditions considered are both required and expected to be encountered critical combinations of configurations, gross weights, centers of gravity, thrust or power, altitudes, speeds, and type of atmosphere and are used in the design of the airframe. Y Y Y Aerial refueling can create unique / adversely affected loads between the new/modified tanker/receiver pair

Also in Chapter 8 Standard:

A. Airframe is designed such that flight loading conditions reflect symmetric and asymmetric flight operations. Also established for both primary and secondary structural components by careful selection of flight parameters likely to produce critical applied loads. Symmetric and asymmetric flight operations include symmetric and unsymmetric fuel and payload loadings and adverse trim conditions.

B. Airframe designed such that symmetric maneuver conditions accomplished with and without a specified roll rate command above 80% maximum symmetric Nz providing acceptable roll capability throughout the specified flight envelope.

C. Airframe designed such that symmetric maneuvers are performed with and without a 50 degrees per second roll rate command for A, F, TF, O and T aircraft and 30 degrees per second for all other aircraft. Symmetric maneuvers include steady pitching, abrupt pitching, flaps down pullouts, aerial delivery pullouts, and emergency stores release.

D. Airframe designed such that asymmetric maneuvers restricted to 80% of maximum design symmetric load factor (Nz). Asymmetric maneuvers are fully coordinated and, alternately, uncoordinated maneuvers. Asymmetric maneuvers include level fight rolls, elevated-g rolls, rolling pull-outs, aerial delivery rolls and takeoff/landing approach roll.

E. Airframe designed for directional maneuvers which include sideslips, rudder kicks, rudder reversals, unsymmetrical thrust with zero sideslip, engine failure, and engine out operation.

F. Airframe designed for evasive maneuvers which include jinking and missile break maneuvers as well as for stalls, departures, spins and tail slides.

G. Airframe designed for operating in the atmosphere with vertical and lateral gusts representative of those expected to be encountered in which:

H. Airframe designed for operating in the atmosphere with vertical and lateral gusts representative of those expected to be encountered in wake turbulence and gust plus maneuver.

I. Airframe designed for operating under aerial refueling and aerial delivery conditions.

J. Airframe designed for operating while using speed and lift controls as well as use of braking wheels in air.

K. Airframe designed for extension and retraction of landing gear.

L. Airframe designed for pressurization in which the pressure differentials used in the design of pressurized portions of the airframe, including fuel tanks, are the maximum pressure differentials attainable during flight within the design flight envelope, during ground maintenance, and during ground storage or transportation of the air vehicle. For normal flight operations, the maximum pressure differentials attainable are increased by a factor not less than 1.33 when acting separately or in combination with 1g level flight loads. For emergency flight operations or when combined with maximum maneuver flight loads, the maximum pressure differentials attainable are increased by a factor not less than 1.0. For ground operations including maintenance, the maximum pressure differentials attainable are increased by a factor not less than 1.33.

M. Airframe designed to account for aeroelastic deformations when determining the final airload distributions.

N. Airframe designed with the inclusion of dynamic response of the air vehicle resulting from the transient or sudden application of loads such as store ejection in the determination of design loads.

O. Airframe designed such that when asymmetric or dissimilar stores are on opposing store stations the required lateral c.g. position is based on 120% of the maximum loading of any single store station or the maximum attainable by loading one side of the aircraft, plus the maximum wing asymmetric fuel allowed operationally without limitations.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A.3.4.1, A.3.4.1.1-15.

JSSG-2006: Power Spectrum Equation on pg 264 under A.3.4.1.6 (for standard development) JSSG-2006: Table XI “Turbulence Field Parameters”, pg 441 (for standard development) Compliance:

The flight loading conditions used in the design of the airframe as defined in the standards is verified by a series of analyses and tests. The following compliances are applicable to all standards:

Correlated flight loads analyses in which details of magnitudes and distribution of all applied external loads are identified for multiple air vehicle configurations, weights, c.g. and maneuvers covering all attainable altitudes, speeds and load factors. Establishment of the service and maximum loads expected to be encountered during operation under all flight conditions. Wind tunnel tests utilized for development of aerodynamic loads. Stiffness and ground vibration tests utilized to update flexibility vs. rigid characteristics of loads analytical model. Flight controls and aerodynamic flight tests utilized to update aircraft simulation models. Loads calibration tests utilized to develop flight load equations. 80% and 100% flight loads surveys/demonstrations utilized to correlate analytical model and substantiate the design loads.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A.3.4.1, A.3.4.1.1-15.

JSSG-2006: Power Spectrum Equation on pg 264 under A.3.4.1.6 (for standard development) JSSG-2006: Table XI “Turbulence Field Parameters”, pg 441 (for standard development) Standard:

A. Airframe is assessed such that flight loading conditions reflect symmetric and asymmetric configurations while aerial refueling. Also established for both primary and secondary structural components by careful selection of AR conditions likely to produce critical applied loads. Symmetric and asymmetric configurations while aerial refueling include symmetric and unsymmetric fuel and payload loadings and adverse trim conditions.

B. Airframe designed for operating in the atmosphere with vertical and lateral gusts representative of those expected to be encountered in wake turbulence and gust plus maneuver.

C. Airframe designed for operating under aerial refueling conditions.

D. Airframe designed for pressurization in which the pressure differentials used in the design of pressurized portions of the airframe, including fuel tanks, are the maximum pressure differentials attainable during flight within the AR design flight envelope. For normal flight operations, the maximum pressure differentials attainable are increased by a factor not less than 1.33 when acting separately or in combination with 1g level flight loads. For emergency flight operations or when combined with maximum maneuver flight loads, the maximum pressure differentials attainable are increased by a factor not less than 1.0.

E. Airframe designed to account for aeroelastic deformations when determining the final airload distributions.

F. Airframe designed with the inclusion of dynamic response of the air vehicle resulting from the transient or sudden application of loads experienced during aerial refueling.

Compliance:

The AR loading conditions experienced by the airframes as defined by the standards are verified by a series of analyses and tests. The following compliances are applicable to all standards:

Correlated flight loads analyses in which details of magnitudes and distribution of all applied external loads are identified for multiple air vehicle configurations, weights, c.g. and maneuvers covering all attainable altitudes, speeds and load factors. Establishment of the service and maximum loads expected to be encountered during operation under all flight conditions. Wind tunnel tests utilized for development of aerodynamic loads. Stiffness and ground vibration tests utilized to update flexibility vs. rigid characteristics of loads analytical model. Flight controls and aerodynamic flight tests utilized to update aircraft simulation models. Loads calibration tests utilized to develop flight load equations. Flight loads surveys/demonstrations utilized to correlate analytical model and substantiate the design loads.

Analysis of similarity with existing certified tankers (new tanker engineering data necessary) as well as similarity with F-16/F-35 receiving from KC-30.

5.2 Structural dynamics N 0 1 0 0 12

Also in Chapter 8 Standard:

The air vehicle is designed such that the structural modes have stability margins involving a gain margin of least 6 dB and separately, a phase margin of at least 60 degrees for any single flight control system feedback loop at speeds up to VL/ML. The operative states (on and off) of the systems are commensurate with the uses authorized in the flight manual as applicable throughout the full flight envelope.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.7.2, A.4.7 Compliance:

The following compliances are applicable in addressing the standards:

Updated aeroservoelastic stability analyses correlated with aeroservoelastic ground tests that are conducted for the critical flight conditions, taking into account the flight control systems gain scheduling and control surface effectiveness.

Flight aeroservoelastic stability tests of the air vehicle and its flight augmentation system.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.7.2, A.4.7 Standard:

Boom and receptacle-equipped receiver control system feedback loops during AR operations have adequate stability margins for coupled flight within the AR envelope for the new/modified tanker/receiver pair.

Compliance:

Analysis and flight test verify boom and receptacle-equipped receiver control system feedback loops during AR operations have adequate stability margins for coupled flight within the AR envelope for the new/modified tanker/receiver pair.

Analysis of similarity with existing certified tankers (new tanker engineering data necessary) as well as similarity with F-16/F-35 receiving from KC-30.

Standard:

A. All aeroacoustic loads sources associated with the air vehicle and its usage are identified.

B. The airframe is designed such that an uncertainty factor of +3.5dB is applied on the predicted aeroacoustic sound pressure levels.

C. The airframe is designed for fatigue life such that a factor of 2.0 is applied on the exposure time derived from the air vehicle specified service life and usage.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.5.1, A4.5.1 Compliance:

Predictions of the near field aeroacoustic loads and fatigue life encompassing the air vehicles service life and usage and the identified aeroacoustic load sources. Wind tunnel, jet models which define acoustic levels. Component acoustic fatigue tests based on fatigue life predictions. Ground and flight aeroacoustic measurements from full scale test aircraft including internal noise measurements.

DoD/MIL Doc:

JSSG-2006: para A3.5.1, A4.5.1 Standard:

A. All aeroacoustic loads encountered during AR operations between…